Talk:All-Night Vigil (Rachmaninoff)

Stopped attending church?

This article currently says this work is "perhaps notable as one of two liturgical settings (the other being the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) by a composer who had stopped attending church services."

I'm intrigued. I looked around on the net for 5 or 10 minutes and couldn't find anything about his stopping attending services. Is this true? Did he make a formal renunciation of the Orthodox church and ragequit? Did he get tired of services to stay home and read novels? Did he become a Theosophist? Or was he merely too busy packing up his household to get out of Russia before things got dicey w/ the coming Revolution?

I think many would like to know more about the truth/falsity and conditions around this statement. JECompton (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Cyrillic spelling

Sorry to be pedantic, but since the work was written in 1915, shouldn't the movement titles be spelled with pre-1918 orthography? (Does Wikipedia in fact have a general policy on this, i.e. – in whatever language – use of pre-reform spelling for works which predate a spelling reform?) Several of the movements have titles which, on pre-1918 standards, would use ѣ, і and final ъ, while the work’s title itself would be Бденіе not Бдение. Vilĉjo 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As a fellow Wikipedia reader, I must say 'Yes, you are being pedantic, but bravo, you cannot be too precise when presenting information on Wikipedia.' Others will disagree and claim Wikipedia should be geared for 'non-specialists'. But please, if you have the original text at hand, modify the table. Just do it right, and provide notes to prevent others from being confused. As the guy who supplied the titles in Russian, I must say 'Do you know how difficult it was to find that information?' I have several recordings of the piece, and none supplied the Cyrillic text (much less with Pre-revolutionary orthography). I do not have the score either. It took quite a bit of time to find the titles on the internet. So I would rather hear your request begin with 'Thank you for taking the time to supply this information and format the table so attractively, but don't you agree that...'. Ivan Velikii 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of dissing your valuable contribution. In fact my questions were real, i.e. not just rhetorical, questions – I am genuinely unclear as to whether spelling reforms should be taken into account where things predate the reform. (E.g. should Wikipedia be spelling Dostoevsky's first name with an initial Ѳ – as he himself would have done – rather than Ф?) In the absence of any answer to this question, I will refrain from making any changes to your text; but for information (and possible inclusion if it is judged to be appropriate) I give below what I believe to be the correct pre-revolutionary spellings (no spelling change is necessary for movements 2 and 8):

• 1. Пріидите, поклонимся
• 3. Блаженъ мужъ
• 4. Свѣте тихій
• 5. Нынѣ отпущаеши
• 6. Богородице Дѣво, радуйся
• 7. Шестопсалміе
• 9. Благословенъ еси, Господи
• 10. Воскресеніе Христово видѣвше
• 11. Величитъ душа моя Господа
• 12. Славословіе великое
• 13. Тропарь «Днесь спасеніе»
• 14. Тропарь «Воскресъ изъ гроба»
• 15. Взбранной воеводѣ

and the title of the whole work: Всенощное бденіе

Vilĉjo 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please pardon my peevish(?) reply to your message. Thank you for taking the time to supply the original movement titles as published (I assume). I came back to this article because I was just checking out the "War and Peace" article, and I noticed the title was given in both modern and pre-1918 orthography. So somebody thinks it is worthwhile doing. I will cut-and-paste your titles into the table replacing the ones I put there (if you don't beat me to it) and will attach a note explaining the unusual characters. By the way, are you fluent in Russian? If so could you supply a literal English translation for the last movement (15)? I believe the one I obtained is a loose translation. Thanks again! Ivan Velikii 10:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm having 2nd thoughts. Believe it or not, I still use Windows 98 (in addition to Windows 2000 and Kubuntu Linux on the same PC) and I noticed the old "e" character is not recognized by my OS. I think I have performed all the updates to my OS and have obtained all the Eastern European character sets I could find and still have those blank boxes where those characters are. What if others who don't adjust their OS's for reading foreign languages also cannot read these? Do we say "They don't care anyway, they can get by with just the English column?" I'll check whether Win2000 and Kubuntu recognize all your characters. Ivan Velikii 10:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a question I've seen turn up many times in talk. The consensus seems to be that if a character is supported by Unicode (as all the pre-revolutionary letters are), it's OK to use it, though inevitably some people will be left behind. (Polytonic Greek is one area where it is a live issue, as many systems only support the post-1982 monotonic orthography which has not been adopted by e.g. the Orthodox Church.) Another possible course, if it doesn't seem like overkill, is to do as the "War and Peace" article does and give both spellings.

I'm afraid I'm not fluent in Russian – {{ru-2}} at best – but "leader" is surely a better translation of воевода (originally a military commander) than "queen", even if the referent is the Virgin Mary. For the pre-1918 spellings, the best single on-line reference I can find is this one, but even this has some clear misprints (e.g. Богородиче for Богородице), and in particular I think муж (movement 3) and Воскрес (mvmt 14) should both have hard-marks at the end (as indicated by Reforms of Russian orthography, and supported by comparative Google searches). I do not claim to be an expert, though, so feel free to treat this with any appropriate caution. Vilĉjo 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This Unicode technical note explains that "The modern letter я does not exist in Church Slavonic". I'm not qualified to edit the Church Slavonic titles, but could anyone explain why я (and not ꙗ for example) appears in several of the names of movements? --WikiWikiPhil (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Since "All-Night Vigil" properly refers to the elements of the Russian Orthodox liturgy, and other composers besides Rachmaninoff have set it to music, we should move discussion of the Rachmaninoff setting to All-Night Vigil (Rachmaninoff). All-Night Vigil should consist of an description of the religious ceremony, which can link to musical settings (of which Rachmaninoff's is by far the most famous). For comparison, Vespers does not consist solely of discussion of Vespro della Beata Vergine 1610 (Monteverdi) and Mass (liturgy) and Mass (music) describe more than just the Mass in B Minor. Grover cleveland 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a move, though perhaps we could instead have "All-Night Vigil" link to "All-Night Vigil (Rachmaninoff)" and then have a link at the top of that page pointing to "All-Night Vigil (disambiguation)" for people looking for a different one. Then again, I am rather biased, as I am quite ignorant of other settings of it. I just wonder what most people will be looking for when they search for "All-Night Vigil": a general discussion of this part of the liturgy, or Rachmaninoff's work? I don't wish to argue, though; if others agree with the idea, by all means enact it. Adso de Fimnu 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All-Night Vigil (Rachmaninoff). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429162907/http://seattlepromusica.org/Rachmaninovs_Vespers.htm to http://www.seattlepromusica.org/Rachmaninovs_Vespers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202213943/http://www.classicalcdreview.com/MC60.html to http://classicalcdreview.com/MC60.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)